The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is proposing to require that electronic on board recorders (EOBRs) be used instead of paper logs for recording commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers’ hours of service (HOS). All long haul operations and some short haul operations would be affected. Carriers would have 3 years to comply. Also, proposed new standards would make clearer what supporting documents carriers must keep to back up drivers’ logs. EOBR-users would get a break on supporting documents.

Tampering has been a big problem in Europe. Is this something that will be checked for at roadside inspections? Do cops know how to do this? What happens if the device fails on its own and it’s not the driver’s fault?

Thanks for your comment. Enforcement against tampering is definitely an issue that warrants further discussion. Do you know how European regulators have addressed this problem? Do you think there could be a different approach with the current rule? -Moderator

Not only have there been problems in Europe, but in Canada with the speed limiters there have been instances where the ECM was damaged when an office plugged into the device. There are several court cases in Canada over this very matter. So, how do we know that an officer has the proper training or equipment to plug into our devices without causing damage to our devices or ECM? EOBRs are nothing more than another control mechanism that the governments wants to put on the population. What about our 4th Amendment Rights under the Constitution relative to Unreasonable Search and Seizure? The Federal Judge in MN recently ruled that MN’s Fatigue Profiling was unconstitutional based upon the 4th Amendment. Furthermore, these burdensome and invasive regulations are contrary to Obama’s call for less burdensome and costly rules and regulations. EOBRs have nothing to do with safety – period end of story!!!

What our Gov. and Universities do not understand is by imposing this it will put a majority of little companies that deliver the essentials that we americans buy everyday out of business hence when you go to pick up milk bread eggs, toilet paper or GASOLINE there will be none. Because the truck that delivers that will be shut down do to HOS because shippers hold them in docks for hours on in waiting on the product to be done to ship. I have worked as a Driver Manager and Account Manager for several large companies. They keep up with this stat and history of loading and unloading times. If we are going to enforce this EOBR we have to change the log rules yet again to let drivers adjust their logs for this as well as many other delays. If my driver starts his clock at 8am. sitting at a dock and doesn’t get loaded till 1pm, and is supposed to be 500 miles overnight to deliver the next morning they have no time left to drive that. Causing the load to be delayed by a day and then the shipper cutting our rates for not delivering on time when it was their fault for not getting my driver out in a timely manner. without being able to adjust these times our country WILL come to a stop and as they say “then what” I can tell you but no one wants to say it.

These would only work in a perfect world where there isn’t traffic or weather or breakdowns or anything else that a driver has to deal with on a daily basis. What if for instance you go to a shipper who screws you a round for 6 hours while they load you and then you can’t make delivery you just lost a day of income who is going to make that up? Not the people who made the rule. What if that happens twice in one week there goes two days of income that you need to operate your buisness. How do you make that up, how can eobrs not have a severe economic effect on drivers livlihood. They may work for the big trucking companies who have thousands of trucks, but what about the guy with one or two or three trucks who is doing everything they can to compete. It seems to that the only people who are in favor of these eobrs are big trucking companies who are in favor of them just so they can control their competition, and the government and universities who I’m sure have no common sense or real world experience with trucking. What is good for big buisness usually hurts small buisness which makes up 95 percent of trucking.

Who do you think pays for idiot legislation like EOBR’s. As Rush always says, “Follow the Money”. Look to see who is sponsoring this legislation and that will answer the questions about “only big company’s can afford to install EOBR’s. Big companies are paying for this legislation precisely so they can run small business truckers out of business, because we can haul it cheaper.

Do you have any ideas about how these devices can be made more cost-effective for smaller truckers? For example, do you have suggestions for an exception that FMCSA could make for these smaller truckers? Or do you have ideas about ways in which the rule can be changed to make it more affordable for everyone?

You can use any EOBR you want, as long as it meets the current EOBR specifications. If the EOBR breaks, you can use the paper logbooks until it’s fixed. FMCSA’s estimates of how long each EOBR lasts are based on the Qualcom MCP-100 model. Qualcom says that its early units are still working after a decade, so FMCSA has used that to calculate costs per unit over 10 years. Is this a fair estimate? Do you know how long other models last?

From our experience, trucking companies are looking to get the most out of their EOBRs, and expect them to last at least the length of their trade cycle for the vehicle. Considering this can be 5-7 years, 10 years may be on the long end of the cycle. Most warranties from the major vendors EOBR vendors are 3 years although I’ve seen some as high as 7, and as low as 1.

That being said, as it sits today, if you buy an EOBR today that is 395.15 compliant, it will be grandfathered into the 395.16 program until 2014, at which point you will need a 395.16 compliant device. If you buy a truck after June 4, 2012 that device must be 395.16 compliant (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=395.16 – section A 1) There are a number of technical components related to 395.16, some which have yet to be defined by the FMCSA.

Another consideration is the speed of which new Fleet Management Systems (FMS) will adapt new hardware technologies. We have seen mobile phones go simple phones to computer desktop replacements in less than 2 years. Using 10 year old technology may not bring the same business benefits as a newer FMS.

Thank you for your comment. I thought it might be helpful to clarify a certain point. EOBR’s would not eliminate enforcement, but rather DOT believes EOBR’s will make it easier and more efficient for truckers because it would get rid of a lot of the extra paperwork.

That is not true. You do not need to carry or have paper logs. The requirement is that you must have a monthly back away from your main unit. I put my records on a dvd monthly stored at home. It is part of the service i get with my JJ Keller unit. the JJ Keller unit costs $199 for the GPS sender, $6.00 a month to use on a smart cell phone. All the smart phones out there now can do the EOBR thing and talk at the same time. You can not text while vehicle is moving with this system. It costs me $75.00 a month for everything on my phone.

There is a problem at this point: how can a truck stop just because of cell phone usage without consideration of team trucks? Just because a cell phone is in use in the truck, does not mean that it is definitely the driver.

The current regulations require that a driver reconstruct RODS for the past 7 days in the event of an EOBR failure and then keep a handwritten RODS until the EOBR is fixed. (You can read more here, here, here, and here.) However, it doesn’t seem that there’s a specific monthly back up requirement. Do you know more about this? For the current proposed rule, do you think there should be a monthly back up requirement?

You are able to use the cell phone and have it do the EOBR thing at the same time. All smart phones are able to do that now. The new Iphone will be able to do 3things at a time. if im at a truck stop i go off duty and take my phone with me the unit only logs trk movement. there is an off duty driving on the system so you can move trk up to 20min if needed at trk, home, or you want to go to the movie. the rule is you can do this but it cannot be used to further commerence. (you must return to your start point or you will be charged the time driving. The system knows i’v tried to beat it and lost.) While not happy 100% with system it works great, DOT likes it. The pnly problem with the system is the fact it is always legal as far as driving. if you are in a traffic jam in LA at rush hour you could loose 3hours going only 50 miles.

Rwwelker, you mention that DOT has checked out this system and likes it. Do you have a source (like a link or an article) for this information? It’d be great if everyone could see exactly what you’re talking about!

I would like to know exactly how I would be using an EOBR to take my truck the 23 miles I take it every month to get it serviced? Would this be recorded as Off Duty, Sleeper, Driving or On duty but not driving?
I don’t think I can figure that out given the four area’s I’m allowed to record and if it is automatically recorded for me, how will law enforcement distinguish it as being any of the four categories?
How about this. When I work 5 hours BEFORE I start driving because that is what is necessary to keep my job and then I drive 10 or 11 hours following, how will law enforcement know I worked that 5 hours before I started driving. Or, when I get done driving, I work another 5 hours making my day a 20 hour day. As long as I don’t enter that into the EOBR, it will appear to law enforcement that I only worked 10 or 11 hours that day. Slick!!! Now my boss can make me work 20 hours a day and only 10 or 11 hours will show on the EOBR. Just what I needed.
When are you rocket scientist’s going to figure out that you can’t make a 24 hour surveillance device that can track what a trucker does.
The problem is not with the drivers, it is with the company’s that demand a driver put in unreasonable amounts of hours to keep their job or business.
Make the companies PAY THE DRIVERS FOR DELAYS THE COMPANY’S CAUSE. Do that one little thing, and you will find most every driver will quit trying to “catch up” for all the delays that have been forced on them without pay and gladly only put in a 10 or 11 hour day. But I suppose that is way to common sense for all you “never even had your ass in a truck seat” bureaucrats up there in Washington to comprehend.
Why don’t you come up with a mandatory 24/7 personal camera/recording/GPS device that costs each DRIVER $1,000,000.00 and monitor every second of his life. George Orwell would be proud of that. Or better yet, thinking like Obama on job creation. If you hired a personal cop to be assigned to every truck driver 24/7, think of how many great jobs that would create. I think that alone would end our recession. That would create so many jobs that you could eliminate the unemployment bureaus all around the country and all of the unemployment payments. That would save a ton of money and probably bail us out of this recession.

You make a good point about the categories of recording time. Should the EOBRs include more categories for recording time, and if so, what categories would you suggest? You also make a good point about time that is not recorded in the EOBR itself. How can the proposed rule be changed to make sure that all the time you worked is properly taken into account?

This is a sad joke, the FMCSA forces an owner operator to by the computer and put it in there truck and then ask the question what should we do to those that tamper with there own property. And somebody is going to tell me this is not invasion of privacy. Makes me wounder what happen to that thing we called freedom. I know,

we will file this under a privilege like driving. Best way to make it tamper proof is to keep it out of my truck

Curious, thank you for returning and continuing to participate in this discussion. We don’t have a position pro or con EOBRs. (Regulation Room is not run by DOT.) The main goal of the Regulation Room is to provide useful and effective comments to DOT. Our job is to help every person air his or her views in the most effective way – whatever those views are. We certainly hope truck drivers will air their opinions to give us that important “on the ground” perspective. However, opinions alone, without providing more explanation or reasoning, are not useful to DOT because they do not help the agency figure out what is wrong with the proposed rule and what needs to be changed. What makes a comment persuasive in a rulemaking? Check out our Effective Commenting page.

That is the point that i am trying to make i guess eobrs have nothing to do with safety, its all about the money. I’m sure someone stands to get rich off of this proposal there always is. At a time when the economy is struggling to recover from a horrible recession and truck statistics are the safest they have been in the 50 years all of a sudden HOS non compliance has become a big issue? why the money I’m sure that eobrs save big fleets plenty of money they don’t have thousands of logs to audit every week, and they have the equipment and the working capital to be able miss appointments and deadlines with small consequences or consequences that won’t put them under. According to ooida the fmcsa can’t even justify this rulemaking without using out dated or inflated numbers from years before the current HOS took effect. So I guess it isn’t all about safety

By the time the Fmcsa and all their anti trucking friends get done with all their new rules and purposed rules, the only people who will be qualified to drive a truck would have to have the knowledge of a lawyer and that is what I believe their are after. They the DOT could ticket a driver for almost anything they want now.Look at CN not to many years ago they could give a driver a ticket for not having a white sheet on your bunk and making sure it was made at all times that was in in the early 80′s and before, i HAVE NOT PAID MUCH ATTENTION TO IT SINCE for I do not run the east coast unless the money is right. The FMCSA says this is all about safety, I am sorry this has nothing to do with safety but more about control over the INDUSTRY and those who try to make a living. And leave it to the government to try to find something to turn the drivers against each other, they should be happy they have done it. No different then the haves and the have nots. SAFETY is what it is about I don’t think so.

“(1) A motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees must require drivers to complete the record of duty status … and must preserve a record of such duty status. A motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees must not make false reports in connection with such duty status.

“(2) No motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees shall permit or require any driver used by it to disable, deactivate, disengage, jam or otherwise block or degrade a signal transmission or reception; or reengineer, reprogram, or otherwise tamper with an automatic on-board recorder or electronic on-board recorder A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road so that the device does not accurately record the duty status of a driver; nor shall any driver engage in the activities prohibited under this paragraph.”

Jamming and otherwise tampering with automatic recorders has been an issue in some other countries that require them. Can tampering realistically be controlled? Are there legitimate devices that could unintentionally interfere with accurate recording? Are there any other questions or issues FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) should consider in finalizing a no-tampering rule?

Intentionally destroying, mutilating, or altering supporting documents, or failing to prevent them from being altered.

Making a false certification about the receipt or retention of supporting documents

Critical citations could be given for:

Failing to require a driver to complete a record of duty status, failing to preserve a record of duty status, or making false reports.

Tampering with an EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) or failing to prevent a driver from tampering with, disabling, or jamming an EOBR.

Failing to maintain all required supporting documents. This becomes an acute citation citation for a violation so severe that it must be immediately corrected, regardless of what other safety measures are in place if the carrier is under a remedial directive.

Failure to identify each supporting document or maintain the supporting documents in a way that allows them to be matched with a driver’s original record of duty status.

Are the proposed citation classifications appropriate? Are there other factors FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) should take into account?

30Carrier Responsibility for Driver Compliance. In general, motor carriers are required to make sure their drivers comply with CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles regulations — whether the driver is actually employed by the carrier or is an independent contractor. (See definition of “employee.”) The proposed new acute and critical citations reflect this responsibility.

The new requirement to have an HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) Management System (see What about Supporting Documents?) would be backed up by holding the carrier responsible for knowing everything in available documents that could be used to double check its drivers’ duty reports:

“A motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees shall be deemed to have knowledge of any and all documents in its possession, and any and all documents that are available to the motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees and that the carrier could use in its hours of service Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive management system. ‘Knowledge of a document’ means knowledge of both the fact that it exists and its specific contents.”

410False Certification. FMCSA proposes stiff penalties for carriers who falsely certify that supporting documents are not available. In general, FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) is required to consider a number of factors in setting the amount of a penalty. 49 U.S.C. 521 (b)(2)(D). But it considers that a false certification would be deliberately subverting the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules and placing drivers and the public at risk. Therefore, FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) would not use its normal penalty calculation practices; instead, false certification would subject a carrier to the maximum civil penalty. Should FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) reconsider its position on this approach? Why?